Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:29:56 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
<snip my previous post>

I have told you before, but you are incapable of learning.
>
But I will repeat in anyway:
>
You have not understood anything of Einstein's text, which is
very obvious from your ridiculous claim that §3 is a plagiarism
of Lorentz. You can't even have read §3 properly, you have only
scrutinised the text to find "x' = x − vt", and when you found
it, you got an orgasm, shouting:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"

NO, innoble animal!. I didn't write that claim. It's clearly stated in
the title of the thread: "Einstein cheated with his fraudulent
derivation of Lorentz transforms".
I clearly wrote that in Point §3, Einstein tried (wrongfully) to derive
Lorentz transforms (named as such by Poincaré, after he gave them their
actual form). The rest of the paper, from Point §4 onwards, is where the
PLAGIARISM of the works of Lorentz (1904) and Poincaré (1905) exist, in
a shameful way. The rule of addition of velocities was a contribution of
Poincaré, who made corrections in the Lorentz paper of 1904, adding that
contribution. As a great man as he was, Poincaré named his revision as
"Lorentz transforms". This is one example of honesty and gentleman ship.
Same with Hilbert in 1917, when he made corrections to Scharwzschild
work and published it naming it as " Scharwzschild Metric".
What I stated is that Einstein was desperate to obtain the
Lorentz-Poincaré transforms by his own. Such desperation led him to
CHEAT and DECEIVE while developing the first part of Point §3, because
HE FAILED TO OBTAIN the correct equation that would led him to complete
§3. But, now that you mention it, he PLAGIARIZED the Lorentz math that
followed his INSERTION of variable changes, when he introduced Gamma out
of the blue. Not even Lorentz got it, but (after 12 years invested on
it, he finally used Voigt to complement his thoughts (and Fitz Gerald)
about LENGTH CONTRACTION. This can be traced back to 1892. READ A
FUCKING BIT OF HISTORY!

But you are yet again making a fool of yourself, and yet again
you are demonstrating that you are unable to read a text and
understand what you read.
>
I could leave it at that, but since you are such a nice person,
I will explain.
>
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §3
  Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
  Times from a Stationary System to another System in
  Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
>
On the first page (page 5) Einstein defines the coordinate systems.
The "stationary system"  K(t,x,y,z) coordinates are Latin letters
The "moving system"      k(τ,ξ,η,ζ) coordinates are Greek letters
>
So the Galilean transform is: ξ = x - vt

NO, innoble animal! ξ is the name of the horizontal axis in the moving
frame k.
ξ(x') = x' in the moving frame. I attached a graphic to clarify this
but, with your "dog vision" you missed it.
x' = x - vt is the well known Galilean transform, along with τ = t' = t.

You will _not_ find this anywhere in Einstein's paper.
>
The x' is a point in the stationary system K, it is NOT
a coordinate in the moving system k.
>
So x' = x - vt is a _moving_ point in K.
And since x' is moving with the speed v, it will be stationary
relative to k.

relative to k.
NO, innoble animal! I repeat: x' is a point in the moving system k,
represented by ξ(x') = x'. As ξ(0) = 0, the length [ξ(x')-ξ(0)] is the
replacement of the rigid rod r_AB used in previous points. When the
cretin asserts that x' may be infinitesimally small, he's stating that
[ξ(x')-ξ(0)] --> 0, but never is ZERO. It represents (in his delusional
mind) that is equivalent to r_AB --> 0, so he is habilitated
(wrongfully) to use Taylor expansion around ξ(0).
But he was a fraudster and CHEATED using x' = 0, when he had to have
used dx' instead (which IS NOT ZERO). But, doing such, he would never
have MANUFACTURED the second equation after
1/2 [τ(0,t) + τ(0,t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)] = τ[(x',t + x'/(c-v)]
which are
1/2 [(1/(c - v) + 1/(c + v)] ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c-v) ∂τ/∂t
or
∂τ/∂x' + v/(c² - v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
HE HACKED THE DEVELOPMENT TO REACH THIS FALSE EQUATIONS.
HE ALSO MIXED, IN A FRAUDULENT WAY, HIS RESULTS OF TIME PERCEPTION FROM
THE FRAME K, AT REST, WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF TIME IN THE MOVING FRAME k.

And as you quoted above:
" We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t", τ(t,x',y,z)
>
This is the first step in finding the functions:
τ(t,x,y,z) = β(t - (v/c²)x)
ξ(t,x,y,z) = β(x - vt)
η(t,x,y,z) = y
ζ(t,x,y,z) = z
>
Read the math in §3!
There is no resemblance to anything you find in Lorentz's paper.
Lorentz didn't even write the Lorentz transform in that paper!
He only used the Galilean transform first, and then the
"change of variable" transform. These two transforms together
is the Lorentz transform.

Innoble animal! I took care of introducing Poincaré as the one who gave
the Lorentz transforms the modern form, after his corrections and the
exchange of letters with Lorentz (1904 - 1905). But there are many
RESEMBLANCES with several things in Lorentz paper CONCERNING THIS POINT.
In particular how he managed to make ɸ(v)= 1, mimicking the reasoning
behind l in Lorentz x'=klx. The rest of the paper was FURIOUSLY AND
DEVIOUSLY PLAGIARIZED by the German-Swiss con-man.

See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"For a reader who is not very skilled in mathematics,
  it may not be obvious that the Lorentz transformation
  is defined in that paper."
>
Richard Hertz is obviously in this category, because he thought
the "change of variables" transform was the Lorentz transform.
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
   x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
   t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5
"
>
-----------
>
Remember that x', like any symbol, may have different meaning
in different texts. 😂
>
You have a lot in common with Dilbert:
>
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf

Innoble animal! I let you retort on your stupid batch of comments about
me, what I think, what I analyze and what I'm capable of doing.
Meanwhile, I can't get out of my head HOW MUCH OF Dono is in you. It
seems that being a huge cretin is contagious even through cyberspace.